Cameron sacks adviser in row over forces pay : Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:18 pm  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-pay.html Note that this isn't one of those spotty 24 year old Eton Oxbridge 'special advisers' from Tory party HQ... This is Professor Alasdair Smith, one of the UKs most eminient economists, who was chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review body, the 'independent' body there to recommend pay rates in the forces. Smiths crime was to make a recommendation that forces pay increases by 1.5%, in direct challenge to an order from ministers that pay rises should be capped at 1%. He has now been removed from his position, so that the government can no doubt appoint a more malleable yes man to head up this 'independent' body. The extra 0.5% was down to the recommendation that "X-Factor" pay, which is reviewed every 5 years and was up for review, and is there to reflect the special conditions of military service (liability to danger, turbulence and adverse balance of service conditions of employment), gets upgraded to reflect the fact conditions have got harder since 2008. The controversial part of the report (available here http://www.ome.uk.com/AFPRB_Reports.aspx) was: Our assessment leads us to conclude that there has been a relative worsening for the military in six components, an improvement in two components with the position for the remaining ten components relatively unchanged. Components showing a net deterioration include turbulence, danger and separation from home and family, all of which we consider to be among the most important. Indeed, for danger and separation the worsening military position is accentuated by relative improvements for those in civilian life. Our independent analysis of the evidence leads us to conclude there has been a deterioration in the conditions of military life relative to civilian life. This was the rationale for the recommendation of that extra 0.5%. The Armed Forces have no trade union to bargain for wages and conditions. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body is there to provide a transparent and public recommendation on what would be reasonable pay for the services. It has not been politicised or trying to drive an unreasonable agenda with sky high pay demands. Regardless over the arguments of the market rate of forces pay, there is something rotten when independent bodies are being told what they can and can't recommend and then the chairman removed when he refuses to tow the line and remains....independent. An elected government is not bound by law to follow the recommendations of an independent body, what I suspect is the agenda here is the government wants to send out a firm message to other such bodies to recommend government policy or else, so that they can respond to critics by saying "we are acting on recommendation from...."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-pay.html Note that this isn't one of those spotty 24 year old Eton Oxbridge 'special advisers' from Tory party HQ... This is Professor Alasdair Smith, one of the UKs most eminient economists, who was chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review body, the 'independent' body there to recommend pay rates in the forces. Smiths crime was to make a recommendation that forces pay increases by 1.5%, in direct challenge to an order from ministers that pay rises should be capped at 1%. He has now been removed from his position, so that the government can no doubt appoint a more malleable yes man to head up this 'independent' body. The extra 0.5% was down to the recommendation that "X-Factor" pay, which is reviewed every 5 years and was up for review, and is there to reflect the special conditions of military service (liability to danger, turbulence and adverse balance of service conditions of employment), gets upgraded to reflect the fact conditions have got harder since 2008. The controversial part of the report (available here http://www.ome.uk.com/AFPRB_Reports.aspx) was: Our assessment leads us to conclude that there has been a relative worsening for the military in six components, an improvement in two components with the position for the remaining ten components relatively unchanged. Components showing a net deterioration include turbulence, danger and separation from home and family, all of which we consider to be among the most important. Indeed, for danger and separation the worsening military position is accentuated by relative improvements for those in civilian life. Our independent analysis of the evidence leads us to conclude there has been a deterioration in the conditions of military life relative to civilian life. This was the rationale for the recommendation of that extra 0.5%. The Armed Forces have no trade union to bargain for wages and conditions. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body is there to provide a transparent and public recommendation on what would be reasonable pay for the services. It has not been politicised or trying to drive an unreasonable agenda with sky high pay demands. Regardless over the arguments of the market rate of forces pay, there is something rotten when independent bodies are being told what they can and can't recommend and then the chairman removed when he refuses to tow the line and remains....independent. An elected government is not bound by law to follow the recommendations of an independent body, what I suspect is the agenda here is the government wants to send out a firm message to other such bodies to recommend government policy or else, so that they can respond to critics by saying "we are acting on recommendation from...."

Re: Cameron sacks adviser in row over forces pay : Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:29 pm  

British politics is a cess-pit inhabited by the scum of society (IMO). So I am not surprised. The only surprise is that it has been done so overtly rather than dressed up as something different for the stupid electorate.

Re: Cameron sacks adviser in row over forces pay : Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:41 pm  

Unusually I agree with you Dally.

The thing that bugs me about this is, that relative to most other countries, the British system of government is actually more transparent, due to all of the freedom of information style requirements that are in place.

The Bank of England for instance is the most transparent Central Bank, fulsome minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee are posted online, the members of the MPC share their different views publicly so the public can see how a decision was reached. The argument and debate is healthy.

Parliamentary Select Committees (of cross party backbenchers) hold ministers to account and have powers to request what advice ministers received from civil servants and independent experts before taking up a policy and if they defied the advice, they are asked why and all this is also detailed as a matter of record.

When government departments need to do research they generally commission it out to independent experts and publish it publicly.

The independence of advice and requirements to publish it means that where a government is taking decisions flagrantly in the face of evidence then everybody can see, this is one of the better things about our system...even if we have dirty politics like everywhere else, we have a pretty open political system which is why its so easy for the press to go to town on UK politicians.

Acts like this are a direct challenge to that openness and this is a very dangerous route to go down.

I suspect part of the government's thinking here is the experience with the Office for Budget Responsibility, which ironically was a George Osborne introduction (welcomed by Alastair Darling, incidentally) to set up an independent body to provide the UK's economic forecasts. The OBR hasn't said what the government wanted it to say, and last week Cameron was given a public rebuke for misinterpreting OBR position as support for his policy, when they came out publically and said...no it wasn't...our position was austerity has damaged the UK economy.

The government now probably hates Robert Chote, the head of the OBR, because he's a self confident character who won't give a rats ass if the government likes him or not. So now that he is a thorn in their side, they want to clearly show other independent bodies who is boss.

Re: Cameron sacks adviser in row over forces pay : Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:49 pm  

Bears a similarity to Prof. David Nutt's removal from the ACMD due his view that cannabis should not be re-graded from a class C to a class B drug.

The problem with appointing academics with a good knowledge of a subject as advisers is that they do not always come up with the answers that our political leaders want them to.